Good morning everyone and welcome.

My name is Robin Wansley, and I am the chair of the administration and entreprise oversight committee committee.

I'm going to call to order our regular committee meeting for today, October 14, 2025.

But before we begin the meeting, I want to offer a friendly reminder to all committee members, staff, and the public that these meetings are broadcast live to enable greater public participation.

These broadcasts include real-time captioning as a further method to increase the accessibility of our proceedings to the community.

Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech so that our captioners can fully capture and transcribe all comments for the broadcasts.

We ask all speakers to moderate the speed and clarity of their comments.

And with that, I will ask the clerk to call the roll.

Councilmember Payne.

Present.

Chair Wandsley.

Present.

That is six members present.

Thank you.

And let the record reflect that we do have a quorum.

Colleagues, I will remind you that we will be using speaker management today.

So please make sure to log in.

And if you have any troubles, make sure to uh connect with one of our clerks for further assistance.

First, we have a public hearing for the professional services contract ordinance.

Um but before opening the public hearing, I do want to say a fur a few words about it.

Um so this ordinance includes a new addition that I am proposing to chapter 18, which is related to procurement.

These changes will now require the administration to provide the council with a quarterly report on all contracts that are under the threshold that requires council approval, which as of now is 175,000.

When passed, the council will receive these reports, much like we receive quarterly reports from the administration related to low-bid awards.

This is just another positive step forward towards improving our transparency within our local government as well as strengthening the council's oversight functions as it pertains to procurement and contract um administration overall.

Um, in closing, I would like to thank Jocelyn Bremer, the city attorney who assisted my office with this ordinance.

I also would like to uh give a major shout out to my staff, specifically Ghanani Omar, who really helped to usher uh this ordinance forward.

Um, but going back to City Attorney Bremer, um they really helped to answer all questions that we had related to procurement, and if my colleagues have um additional concerns or questions, I will also recommend connecting with that city attorney.

Um also I learned that in response to us doing this work, there's been of course other significant concerns raised by other council members around how we're doing contracts and managing their uh managing their administration and again how do we foster greater oversight over them.

So I would recommend once again uh city attorney Jocelyn Bremer to be the point of contact for that.

Um and I'm really looking forward to continuing the work of improving and standardizing the procurement processes that really guides how contract administration is done all across the entreprise.

So with a note of gratitude for city staff, my existing staff and trying to figure out ways to uh restore the public trust in the city's uh contracting process.

Um, I really hope I can earn my colleagues' support on this ordinance.

Um, but that said, I will proceed with opening the public hearing to which we do not have anyone signed up to speak.

If there's anyone in the audience who would like to speak um on this ordinance, feel free to step forward or check in with the clerks.

Okay, seeing no one signed up.

Um, I am going to close this public hearing.

So with that, um, I will see if any of my colleagues have any questions regarding um the ordinance.

Also, I will note uh some of my colleagues did bring to my attention that there was a typo in the ordinance language that uh reflected a hundred and seventy-fifth thousand dollars of our clerks have worked to correct that and we'll get an updated version um on the limbs uh file.

So with that, I'll see if no one is in queue.

So with no questions or further discussion, I will move this item for approval.

Uh may I have a second on that?

Second.

Thank you.

Um clerks, if you could take a roll vote.

Councilmember Payne.

Aye.

Vita.

Aye.

Cashman.

Aye.

Chuck Tai.

Aye.

Vice Chair Palmasano.

Aye.

Chair Wandsley.

Aye.

That is six ayes.

All right.

And that motion carries.

Next, we will take up our consent agenda, which is items two through 15.

Uh, number two is a gift acceptance from Metropolitan Police Department for Transportation, Mills, and Lodging.

Three is the gift acceptance from Urban Institute for Travel and Lodging Expenses.

Four is a gift acceptance from Open Mobility Foundation for Travel and Lodging Expenses.

Five is a contract amendment with PCI Roads LLC for First Avenue South Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction Project.

Six is a contract amendment with Shehee Construction Company for Convention Center Concessions 136 remodel project.

Seven is a contract amendment with ABR Inc.

for ready mixed concrete.

Eight is a contract amendment with Meyer Contracting Inc.

for the Fremont Av South Sanitary Pipe Replacement Project.

Nine is a contract amendment with Q3 contracting inc for lead service line replacements, year two restoration only project.

10 is a contract amendment with more construction inc for Hearthorn Office Build-Out Project.

11 is a contract amendment with Meyer Contracting Inc.

for Second Street North Sewer Improvement Project.

13 is a bid for Covitch Center Mill City Kitchen Concessions.

134 remodel.

14 is a collective bargaining agreement, labor enforcement labor services, Inc.

represented 911 dispatch supervisors 2026 through 2027.

At 15 is Americans with Disabilities Title II policy.

With that, I will see if anyone is in queue for any questions on these items.

Okay.

Not seeing anyone in queue.

I will move all items on the consent agenda for approval.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

All right.

The ayes have it, and that carries.

Next is our first discussion item number 16.

Staff have reached out to postpone this item to our next uh meeting date of October 27.

And that item was our pay parental leave policy.

Um so I will move to postpone this item to our next meeting, which again is October 27th.

Um, not seeing no objections, we'll make note of that.

All right.

Our next and final item on the agenda is related to master contracts for eligible providers of workforce development services for 2026 through 2028.

I will ask Mark Brenda, CPED Workforce Development Development Manager to speak on this item.

Uh welcome uh Mr.

Brenda.

Thank you, uh committee chair Wandsley, council members.

Thanks for having me today.

Um, in front of you are uh long list of uh potential eligible providers for workforce development services and what looks like a total of about 48 million dollars worth of service.

And I want to set some context to that and what's in front of you today.

So that's what I'm here to do.

Let me pop through these.

So I just want to give a little bit of uh uh background on where we've come from with this process.

Uh every five years and now on every three-year cycle, the city of Minneapolis implement training uh works to establish a three-year or excuse me, uh, eligible provider list of potential partners to do this work.

These are all community-based organizations, um, with the exception of Deed, our partner at the state of Minnesota.

Um, this is to uh execute contracts that come from multiple sources of funding, including federal, state, and city resources, primarily general fund.

Uh the community-based partners uh have to meet the sort of guidelines we set forward to either train place council, provide support services to uh residents of Minneapolis.

We've been doing this process for about um between 20 and 30 years on this five-year cycle.

This year we're looking at a three-year cycle, and this is on guidance from procurement and finance department.

The steps in this process um are laid out like this.

We solicit to our community-based partners to become part of an eligible writer list.

This just establishes that we have vetted them as organizations, that they do this type of work, that they're in good standing, um, but it does not guarantee any financial commitment or any program um participation.

This is a simply a first pass at these organizations.

We've worked with the federal government on this during various auditing and monitoring periods, and they really do appreciate this first check that we establish this list, and so this is a practice we've upheld and really do like.

This then allows us to um work with these organizations when we do have project specific work.

Um in front of you today, and why this is significant is that we also then in this process set potential upper limits that a single agency could potentially earn within this three-year process.

These are staff derived dollars.

We sort of anticipate or we look back at past um contracting periods and say, what would an agency in this case potentially earn if they were to receive funding for a youth program, uh dislocated worker program, an adult program, a competitive um career pathways program.

And we set that so that the financial system can be loaded.

And so I'll give you some examples of actually where those numbers end up.

For agencies that we have not contracted with in the past, we set sort of a um uh sort of a standard dollar amount that can be adjusted if an agency was to receive multiple uh uh sub-recipient contracts in that process.

So this is what establishes those dollar amounts that you see within those 41 contracts that are in front of you.

Um and again, uh unlikely that many of them would earn that upper a dollar amount.

Once and if an eligible provider applies for another round of competitive process, this is a two-part competitive process we put in place, this first eligible provider list, and then we put project specific work out through a request for qualifications, which then is another check on that process.

And if they are awarded that project specific work, we put that out in what is called a fan, a funds availability notice, and that would carry the scope of work and all those requirements.

Once that is in place, uh the organization is then in um in a position to provide that work um for us.

Those fans are all monitored for both um monetary uh policies as well as programmatic, and it's not per agency, it's actually per fan.

So a single organization that would be receiving this, and if they were to receive multiple funding sources from us would be audited and monitored in both those both of those funding and project specific work.

What's in front of you uh is those are those dollar amounts to give you some historical context from 21 to 25, what it looked like.

We actually did this process on a five-year period with uh um 40 plus organizations at that time.

We actually executed 31 eligible providers into the master contract process.

We put out that there could be 40 uh excuse me, 84 million dollars of contracting.

What what ended up being the case was 41 million.

That is about where I sort of anticipate our budget to be uh, you know, if we look at over year over year and what we'd be looking at for the next three years.

So you can see that we established those uh maximum amounts.

What actually gets um put into um uh fans is a fraction of that.

And so you can see how that um um sort of walks down that process, but it gives us that flexibility to do this work through the master contract process.

Something that's important to us, and I heard also in the previous action of this uh committee is this transparency and oversight, and I want to make sure that uh I get out that our programs are monitored at three separate governmental uh um uh scales.

One, we have federal agencies, we have the Department of Labor as well as HUD that oversees our work and do provide audits and monitors of our work.

We have state agencies because we receive state funding that includes the state auditor as well as our partner deed, uh, Department of Employment and Economic Development.

And finally, we provide oversight of uh quarterly monitoring, monthly monitoring of our partners, as well as finance department's um procurement and grants office uh overseeing that work.

So that is what is in front of you.

This is what establishes that eligible provider list, and we um we you know uh will be looking to hopefully move these forward today.

Thank you, Mr.

Brenda.

Um I'm seeing if anyone is in queue for questions.

I do see Vice President Chuck Tai first.

Um Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I want to return to slide four in your inner presentation here.

Now am I reading this correctly that the um rightmost column here tells us how like of the 84, 85 million dollars um that was set as the maximum limit for for uh these mass master contracts um about half was awarded.

Is that correct?

Councilmember Chugtai that uh yes, what we did is we loaded the system with 84 million dollars as the upper limit if every agency was to get funded at that maximum amount.

What we ended up putting out um was this 41 million plus dollars, so about 49 percent of that.

We anticipate that with the exception of a massive federal investment in workforce development, we which I don't see over the next three years, um, we would never get to that upper limit.

But an individual agency may perform really well in a three-year period.

That's why we set this this what looks like a well overage in that.

Um some agencies and on a much larger spreadsheet, which would be very hard to read, you would see that many agencies in our organiz or that we work with earn nothing more than you know a single contract in a three-year period for maybe 250,000 to fund a very specific project.

Some do perform um with multiple programs and do earn a little bit more.

And so you can see that there was at 84 um of the eligible providers.

If we would take a little bit closer look at this, of the uh 47 eligible providers, we actually only went through 31 um master contract process.

So only when an organization is first awarded dollars in a project, would we execute a master contract?

It does require them to then do more work.

It has them establish an affirmative action plan and then carry the insurances, which we may have at a higher standard than uh say a foundation that they're working with.

So we don't want them to have to carry that if they don't need it because they're not funded by us.

So we only execute that master contract once a grant from us has been executed.

And then that sets and that will be in place for that three-year period or however long the remaining period is.

So that's why you see the 47 to the 31.

And but that that dollar granted at 41 million is that is that those dollars that went out in that five-year period.

Yeah, so I think we're where I am stuck with both this 49 percent number and this 58 percent number is like, so then why are we setting these maximums when we know we're not using all of that money?

We set those maximums so that we don't have to return to you every time an organization would be up against a much lower cap.

So we set those dollar amounts at something that would be um within the realm of possibility if an organization was to be earning um multiple contracts through us to provide any number of services.

So an organization uh, if I could use examples, um, an organization that has a much broader uh scope from youth programs to adult career pathways to maybe some federal uh programs like a dislocated worker or uh WIOA youth program, they may actually earn or uh be funded up to uh maybe 2.5 million dollars in a five-year period, maybe a little bit less in a three-year period.

We want to make sure that there's enough uh room in the budget loaded into the financial system to allow for that.

So it is and it does look exaggerated because we don't get close to it.

Um so it's so it sounds like a convenience thing for you and from an oversight perspective.

I I would I personally, and just speaking for myself, would rather see us um project far more accurate numbers that are more realistic or in line with what we are going to spend.

And then once an organization hits that cap, uh perhaps it's it's a little bit more work to have to fill out an RCA and come back in front of us, or to have to go through that process again, but I don't that makes more sense to me than what we're doing right now.

Councilmember Chugtai, thank you for that.

I that that that upper limit threshold is not something that we have it is part of the financial system more than it is the programmatic side.

So I I hear that component.

We do come back when we do hit that upper limit.

We do come back to you and and present that as this organization has exceed or met now we need to exceed that.

Can we re-establish a new upper end?

So we do return.

Um, but what you're not seeing is all those agencies that are part of this that apply who may or may not participate in an RFQ process that we do set at $500,000 or a million dollars of potential earn that never do come close to that or even become a master contract process holder.

So thank you.

Thank you for the President Chakai.

Um next I see Vice Chair Pomazano.

Thank you for this information.

Um I just wanted to point out on slide five, it talks about monitoring and auditing, and I think we've learned how important that is at every level of government.

Um, one example, yours is a much more mature program, but we learned a lesson in the neighborhood safety department and have watched that department up-end processes demand accountability and and be ex an example for other departments.

Can you describe um the city processes that ensures these funds are being spent appropriately and efficiently and in good faith a little bit?

Absolutely, Councilmember Palmasano committee.

Uh so at each of these scales of government, the process of monitoring and auditing is a bit different.

Um our federal audit and our federal monitoring uh may come um per program type and per funding type.

So let me say a little bit more about that.

Each of these carries with it um the act which has allowed this to take place.

So in with the Department of Labor, they may select Minnesota, they then may come into the workforce development area 10, which is our designation at the federal level, and they would come in and they would provide about a month to six weeks of monitoring and auditing, working with both the financial side as well as the programmatic side.

They will also work with our partner Deed, who is in fact the uh the organization that in many cases holds the workforce development data that we then um add into the system, so through the the their case management system.

And all of those components will then get monitored and audited.

We will look at case notes, we will look at, or they will look at case notes, they will look at spends, they will make sure that the general ledger of any of our sub-recipients is matching the uh invoice that comes in and that we are paying, and that that ties back to a case management system, which says this person exists, this person received training, this person had an invoice for a nursing program, a construction program, a manufacturing program.

And so that would be what we look at at the federal level.

That model is going to take on different intensities depending on whether or not it be at the state agency level or at the local level.

And when I say intensity, it depends on the scope of that fund.

The federal government is about a uh third of our funding, and they carry with it very um uh structured approach.

The state of Minnesota will also do a very similar approach.

It may be scaled back in time.

It may actually be then, though, more intense in terms of how frequent it happens.

The state may come to us and say yearly, we're going to pull this funding.

It might be a youth funding, uh, Minnesota youth programs, or it could be our competitive grant from the state, or it could be our dislocated worker funding from the state of Minnesota.

They would then select us as a area and come in and do a very similar monitoring, work with our finance team and work with our program staff.

It's going to look a little bit different because it is the state of Minnesota versus the federal government.

Um, but again, that is uh follows a very similar uh approach.

HUD, if I go back up to the annual monitoring, HUD is a little bit different, of course.

HUD comes in generally speaking, mon manage or monitors and audits all of community development block grant, and may in that year select workforce development programs that have been funded out of this, and then we will participate in that, though I that will be dependent on what that monitor and auditor from HUD is going to be looking at.

With the City of Minneapolis, we have a team that our contract managers that do go in and monitor program uh outcomes on a yearly basis, generally speaking, it's about nine months into a program.

If it's a one-off, if it is an annual program, we will have a standard set, usually happening sometime in summer, but it can flex to fall depending on the schedule.

That program monitoring is then also uh accompanied with uh financial monitoring, which does look at whether or not their invoices are matching their program data matching up with um what we have been paying them, and then whether or not when the program is closed out, that they have run no uh positive, that it has been equal to, their expenditures have met equal to what we have paid them, or it actually is under.

So those are sort of the ways in which we look at those uh practices, and we do this again on an annual basis to make sure that every program is monitored, not just every agency, because many of these agencies do operate multiple programs within a given year.

I hope that answers your question.

Yeah, thank you.

That gives me a lot more context about all of this different money.

You said that federal contracts are about a third of this money, and could you give us a general thumbnail proportion on state and city?

Absolutely.

So uh it fluctuates from year to year depending on the federal government has been anywhere between about 29 to 34 percent, depending on our allocation.

Um the state gets a uh uh gets its share and then it divides it out based on um aspects of unemployment rates, poverty rates, and and so on so forth.

So every year that is uh a little bit different.

So anywhere between that third, 30, 30 to 35 percent, someplace in there.

Um the state has been uh been particularly um up and down over the last uh five years, um, any time or anywhere between about 20 percent to about 30 percent, and then the rest is made up of general fund or CPED sources that we then put back into programming.

I will say something that's I think important to the transparency.

Though we do receive those general funds, which do not carry with it a uh a financial and a programmatic uh structure, like the state dollars.

We carry those state expectations of contracting and contract management to those local funds so that they're operating under the same R CBOs or community-based organizations, are operating under the same guidelines and expectations.

And so those do carry forward.

So um they do look and then behave much more like a state source than they would sort of like a uh a sort of one-off situation where funding is going out the door.

Yeah, thank you so much for this.

Um this is a lot of money.

So I appreciate all of the oversight we have in place on it.

Thanks.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Next thing you I see council member of Etaw.

Thank you for the presentation.

I just had a couple questions about um impact.

You know, you have this list is a range of organizations, and I can only assume like the kind of work they're doing.

If you could maybe share some of the projects or programs we're funding with these organizations, that'd be great.

Thank you, uh Councilmember of Eta committee members.

The program scope of this is fairly broad.

The programs, the program range for age is 14-year-olds all the way up to senior programs.

All of these have a workforce development angle.

And what I mean by that is that there is some level of career coaching and counseling that takes place.

There could be, though not obligated in some programs, training dollars that would accompany this.

There could be earn and learn models where somebody is uh receiving a stipend while they are in school that will then stabilize them a bit into uh job placement.

This could be a summer program, this could be a year-round youth program, it could be uh older youth program where there's more intentionality around stability of housing and re-engagement with school.

The programs within this that we operate would be our step-up program, which is a well-known uh summer youth program, which you all know uh well.

Uh we have the year-round youth program, which is federally funded that serves anywhere between 300 and 500 young people who are um high barrier in um however those definitions are, could be housed uh housing insecure, it could be f uh aging out of foster care, could be um justice involved, there's many categories that would uh bring somebody in that program.

We have career pathway programs, which intentionally load short-term uh credentialed and diploma training ahead of job placement.

So somebody who's looking to advance their skill set um for uh entry into that workforce.

Um those are means tested, meaning we do set guidelines about who can um gain access to this, and usually those are set within an income or within a geography, though Minneapolis has generally been our our uh geography that we use for residents coming into the programs, though we can set those depending on the program.

Um we also offer dislocated worker programs, which include those who have been laid off no fault of their own who need to come in to seek those services.

And those programs, generally speaking, are offered through state funding and federal funding to design for that.

We have adult uh low-income worker program operating uh throughout Minneapolis.

Um those are sort of core programs uh through these resources.

We also do things that are special projects, including the apprenticeship outreach office and um at 800 West Broadway, where we're trying to make sure that more residents of Minneapolis, specifically throughout uh North Minneapolis are aware of the opportunities in apprenticeship, because they are gateways to really high-paying um careers uh in those fields.

Uh we've done special programs around uh child care uh and entry points into early childhood education, money that came from this uh council in the last round of of uh uh uh last budget process.

We launched that with our partner at YWCA, which is designed specifically to add to those who are in the uh early childhood um teacher pool, which could then add gateways into elementary schools, into uh teacher certificates, into a four-year degree there.

So we have a wide range of various projects that we offer, and the impact on that is anywhere between 2,000 to 4,000 job seekers, upper ends would be 10,000, depending on how we're counting.

If we're looking at workshops taken at um places like 800 West Broadway or at one of our community-based partners.

So it does reach uh many people throughout uh many job seekers throughout Minneapolis, as well as then working backwards to our business community who are seeking these um these folks to work at their organizations.

So it doesn't always equal a job, but it does it has some components to make sure people have the ability to get a job or the proper training, or that young people have exposure to future careers, that sort of thing.

Councilmember Ita, that's uh it's an important component of our work.

The gold standard for most workforce development services is a job.

However, we do recognize, and some of our programs really are about stability.

Moving somebody into a place that in the longer term, they may be able to be able to find that stability.

An example of that would be our Journey Forward program, which is taking folks that have been uh justice involved and gang and click involved, and really intentionally saying, let's stabilize first on a much longer pathway.

For the older youth program, you're exactly right.

It might be about stability services, it might be about mentoring services that may and you know, hopefully will lead to that career exposure, but may be successful in earning a high school diploma at the age of 21.

That would be a good exit for that that young person as they then take on their own next steps.

So you're right.

There are other alternatives, though I will say that most of our programs do highlight work as the end goal of that project.

Thank you for that.

I would just um ask for maybe like some specific data on the impact of these um these contracts.

You know, this isn't something that we're just aware of on a daily basis.

And I think it's it's huge.

It's great.

It's fantastic to have uh these programs in our communities, especially in North Minneapolis, and I would love to see who who and how many people have benefited from these programs and like what the future plans look like.

Um I'm guessing when you get to that point, these organizations will provide some sort of work plans or goals uh for the future of their um contracts.

And I would love to see what we've done so far and what's expected from the uh we oftentimes report to the BIS committee, and so we will oftentimes offer up that annual report.

We do provide uh we do put out annual reports as well as quarterly reports of data, as well as uh projects uh and um um stories of participants through programs.

So we'd love to provide that to you, and we're happy to come back to this council at any moment to talk about our outcomes, which we do track quite quite extensively.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Um also I had my stuff in queue.

I was actually going to reference the early child care program and the fact that you all did come to the business housing and zoning committee to give uh specific report back on that.

And um, you do do that overview of all of these programs there.

Uh, don't know what the makeup of committees will look like next year, but um it's good to know that at least there's already regular reporting to that relevant committee around these uh specific projects that we're considering today and have been passed before.

Um so I would say yes, council members keep keep a you know, look out on that.

I did have a question regarding the fiscal note then, considering uh the revenue streams that you did mention, those are not reflected in a fiscal note.

Uh even uh and one to get clarity, you know you noted that federally or either a combination of federal and state appropriations have added up to about a third of contributions towards the overall funding of this program.

Do you know what the exact figure amount would be for 2025?

Sorry, 2026.

And we're wrapping up 2025 also.

Yeah.

Um Councilmember Wandsley, um, that is uh I'd have to look back at the exact dollar amounts that we have been granted, our fiscal year for our federal resources are July 1, and we are finishing up those uh contracts with Deed, who passes through the money to us.

So I'd have to take a look specifically at those dollar amounts.

Um and they do, as I mentioned, they do shift.

Um I can say it's uh for youth programs anywhere between 1.1 and 1.3 adult programs, we've been around um $850,000 to around a million dollars.

And then for our dislocated worker uh program through the federal sources, it's been anywhere between about uh 400,000 and 600,000 per year.

That program is augmented by a state program.

We're lucky enough in the state of Minnesota to have a dislocated worker program.

That's augmented by, and that um that contract is just being finalized and it ranges anywhere between about 750 to about 1.1 million dollars per year, depending on the health of that fund and then the proportion that comes to Minneapolis.

Those are rough numbers.

I'm coming off my head of our new 25 uh 26 dollars.

I can get you exact numbers on those for sure.

And if you could work with the clerks to then update the fiscal note for the RCAA.

Oh, of course.

Yeah, we're trying to get more clarity of what revenue streams are coming in to support our programs, and this is a great way for everyone to have that same information.

Very good.

Um and then just also following up or council vice president uh questions earlier, uh, just setting the context in the RCA it's noted as opposed to setting that higher echelon funding goal of like 79,000 or 80,000 or so.

Um you have 47 million, sorry, 47 million um as listed as the maximum for these contracts going between 2026 and 2028.

Can you share what what contributed to the difference?

Because in the it seems like prior sets of contracts that you presented on.

Again, you noted that 84 million is 71 million, and now it's hovering.

Much less.

Yes.

Yes, Councilmember Wandsley, uh committee members.

Uh that represents a the the move from a five-year contracting process to a three-year contracting process, and then setting um every period that we go through this, we actually look back at what were those historic averages actually earned by organizations to set those realistic targets.

So they do move a little bit.

So we did try to use that five to three-year number change as proportionally, and then setting those realistic expectations, also knowing that this period of three years, the likelihood of seeing something like an ARPA or uh other federal sources.

If those were to come through, we would absolutely come back to you and have to change those.

But at this point, we tried to be as realistic to uh Councilmember Chugtie's point that was, you know, why exaggerate these?

We really want to stay as close to honest as we can to set those so that we one have that uh ability to move fans pretty quickly, but also uh knowing that we want to um, you know, be in line with what we believe is going to be in in place.

So that's that change in those dollars from the previous five years to this three-year cycle.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Um those are the questions that I had then um yeah, I think that is all.

I'm not seeing anyone else thank you.

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

Uh Vice President Chuck Thai.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Checker.

I'm sorry, I I'll do my best to make this quick.

Um I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding correctly.

Is what's happening with this set of three-year contracts that these numbers are more realistic and likely to all be more accurate, or are these the maximum possible that could be billed.

Councilmember Chuck Ty.

Um it is a good question.

There are two parts to that if I can interpret what you've what the question you've asked.

One is uh very theoretical in that there are agencies that are brand new to workforce development within the city of Minneapolis that have come through and have shown through the eligible writer process, RFP, that they have that they are a provider of this service.

We have never worked with them or we've never funded them before.

And so on that, we really do have to say, let us set a sort of a maximum we believe an organization like that may earn.

That could be something that we would have to revisit with this council uh with this committee um earlier if they happened to compete and then win other contracts.

So on some of them, we don't have a good basis for where they're going to be at, and that's why we set a standard dollar amount that that would then fall in line.

Um I will say every five-year period, in this case a three-year period.

There are new organizations that do pop up in Minneapolis that want to provide the service, and we want to give opportunity to that as long as they meet a minimum that that threshold for eligible rider, knowing full well that they'll come through an RFQ process as well for program-specific work, so that we have another opportunity to competitively select.

We have lots of experience and they've done many multiple projects with us.

And in that case, we do use that five-year average.

We say, what did they earn?

Where did it come to?

What are they doing right now?

And can we get close to that to a realistic number so that we're not inflating our uh the the finance system unnecessarily?

So we do try to set those um with with those practices in place uh when we go through this process to bring them towards uh forward to you.

That's helpful.

And of this list of 41 organizations, uh can you give me like approximately how many are our ones um that meet the the first category you described, right?

Like new, haven't contracted with them before.

Um and so we're setting uh a baseline just or a maximum just based on um not based on our experience with them, but what could what they could possibly absolutely, Councilmember Chucktai, thank you for that question, committee members.

Um an organization like Build Wealth Minnesota, so uh number five, if you look on the list.

Build wealth has been a long-standing community-based organization uh working with uh housing specific programs.

They've approached us more recently and said, hey, we are now providing workforce development services.

One gap we saw in our services is that residents were coming in wanting to own a house, wanted to qualify, but their income wasn't giving them the uh the ability to buy the home they wanted.

And so by starting a workforce development program within their housing space, they are looking to find ways to increase the hourly earning potential of their future home buyers.

And so in that, we have not worked with them up to this point, but we but they came through this eligible provider process.

They are showing that they have these services and that they could participate in this.

And so we've set a $500,000 um upper limit on that to say we believe that you are in this space.

We believe you are potentially going to be working with us, and so we will put that dollar amount in place.

Again, if in the three-year cycle they become a major component or a major um uh provider of service, we would then come back to up that.

I can look at some others, uh, a cookie cart.

Uh I'm sorry.

So Build Wealth MN would be an excellent example of one where that number isn't coming from historic averages.

I think my question for you was can you give me a sense of of these 41?

How many are we looking at historic averages versus versus numbers that they could possibly build?

Computer Chuck Dai, thank you for that.

Uh thanks for that clarity.

Um I'd have to count through any number, any of these that have the $500,000 mark are organizations that we have we do not have a long-standing historical average on versus those that have what look to be a little bit um higher threshold, some one point uh 1.25 million, some 2.25 million, um, some uh one million in this.

Um so you'll you'll you can see uh, and again, I would have to look um some are much higher at a 4.25 million dollars, those look very high.

Those are oftentimes organizations that are um have a much deeper history within our programming and do provide um very specific services within the federal dollar realm, and that is something that um it is so much of this work is so nuanced.

Those programs operate on um a recurring basis, so they're not one-off programs.

They are meant to continue on to provide neighborhood and uh resident continuity from a year over year, something that the federal government likes us to be able to do within our service model.

Um and so those organizations we know having been selected competitively will be continuing to, unless they don't meet fiscal standards or programmatic standards, would be continuing on that path.

So their dollar amounts are much higher.

Um and those are again based on historic averages.

Yep, excellent.

Um yeah, I think that that answers my question, uh, Madam Chair, if it's okay with you, let's uh can we just do an administrative uh follow-up on um exactly how many of these are how are based on historic averages versus not?

Um that that 500,000 number is very helpful.

Like I went through and saw that, but I just would love some follow-up on that.

Thank you.

Yeah, clerks, did you know?

higher um and those are again based on historic averages yep excellent um yeah i think that that answers my question uh madam chair if it's okay with you let's uh can we just do an administrative uh follow up on um exactly how many of these are are how are based on historic averages versus not um that that 500 thousand dollar number is very helpful like I went through and saw that but I just would love some follow-up on that thank you clerks did you note okay that is a question it's just also like procedural things granted I'm you might not present at this committee again but just want to note like titles that's council vice president Chuck Thai chair vice chair Palmasano and I'm chair um and I will make sure to core I know clerks will follow up sometimes offline to make sure your question is captured and I'm thankful you're flagging that council member vital did you also want questions added to it sound like there might have been on the follow-up on projects in North Minneapolis.

Yes okay and then also uh details regarding projects that will be uh touching north minneapolis okay so I believe that is it for discussions and questions so I will move this item for approval may I have a second second all right great uh so that item has been motioned um all those in favor say aye aye those opposed all right the ayes have it uh slightly shorter agenda today but we've concluded all business um before us and I call this meeting adjourned